It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain to deport anyone who "justifies acts of violence"

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   


According to his publicly stated policy all people who 'justify violence' are to be deported.. . . and this includes himself.


How the hell can Blair be deported? he was BORN in this country, how the hell can you deport someone BORN in this country? you can't. I could stand in London and promote terrorism, but i cannot be deported because i was born in this country.

I think you need to understand the UK legal system, before you claim to be an expert on who can be deported.



[edit on 6-8-2005 by infinite]




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I wouldn't waste your breath inf, I pointed this out complete with wikipedia definition back on page 1, but as it goes against what he wants to say he ignored it anyway.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I think the Poster of this thread has a point just not putting it across very well with his anti-Blair stance, although I do think this law is needed, in part at least.

What concerned me yesterday with the wording of this new law is:

That you will be subject to prosecution (and deportation if a foreign national) for supporting violence and/or terrorism anywhere and that you will be subject to prosecution (and deportation if a foreign national) for justifying in anyway acts of violence or terrorism.

This is quite ambiguos wording. I mean, whilst attacks on innocent civilians are horrid and I condemn them, one could justify actions taken by Palestinians against Israeli soldiers, but they are still acts of terrorism.

Where do you draw the line with this law? With the current wording, you could be arrested and imprisoned/deported for supporting the Palestinian attack on a military target as long as it is called Terrorism.

Even if you abhore the attacks on the civilians, an attack on a military target is justifiable given the way the Israelis have treated them and merely voicing your support for them would be grounds enough to be prosecuted

What about other "struggles" around the world, like the Chechens or the Nepalese, or even those that support the struggle against British rule in NI? As long as someone calls it "Terrorism" then you fall under the catch-all blanket of this law, even if the attacks carried out are justifiable targets, such as troops/logistical centres/strategic installations like Brodcasting etc.

I mean, when we go to War, we don't restrict attacks to wholly military targets either, but that is not Terrorism. So one could justify armed attacks on such places, that are not specifically "Acts of Terror" but more like Insurgent/Guerilla actions, but still be Prosecuted.

There must be plenty of people who think that the Iraqi insurgents are justified in their actions, not the attacks on civilians by AQ but the attacks on troops and bases by the rebels, who could be jailed or deported for saying that.

I think this needs clarification and clearly defined guidelines on what is meant.

Banning/Deporting foreign nationals for inciting actual acts of terrorism is one thing, but the blanket nature of this new law could encompass a whole lot more.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
Thatswhats needed!

MORE Laws
MORE Control
MORE Authority
MORE Fear
MORE Accusations
MORE Security

MORE< MORE



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I reckon its a good move, but it does need more clarification as to what could happen and just who is regarded as inciting/supporting terrorism.

Will it extend to flyer's being handed around by pro terrorist movements? Will it also extend to web sites? Some of these have already been shut down by the powers that be.
Hell, we have had many pro terrorist supporters among us on ATS. Will we all get arrested for voicing our concerns or beliefs? Could ATS get shut down because it has people who support terrorism as members?
Very very dodgy ground at the moment.


I think in principle its a sound idea, but there is a long way to go with it. A hell of a long way to go..............................



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
About time too!

I am absolutely sick and tired of these warmongers.

We should deport them all.

Trouble is.......... Where do we send Tony Blair and the rest of the Cabinet?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   


Blair said the government was prepared to amend human rights legislation if legal challenges proved insurmountable.


Link

Convenient that Blair can now rewrite definitions to support a state defense. If that weren't interesting enough, I noted that the parameters were left completely open.

The issue right now is the advocation of hate and 'extremism' by foriegn nationals. But the government has just given itself a huge power. What are the guidelines for the adendums that they are now allowed to make? There are none!! They can customize a defense to respond to any legal challenges. What a great precedent for future citations, allowing for government to make changes in the name of security.....

Everyone who is applauding the moves by the French and British government haven't thought this one through....imo

Btw, infinite, could you please locate a link that says anyone born in Britain would be exempt from this new law....I couldn't find it and would be very interested in it....




Mod Edit: Long Link only.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   


Btw, infinite, could you please locate a link that says anyone born in Britain would be exempt from this new law....I couldn't find it and would be very interested in it....


You need a link?errrr....why?
you don't even need an IQ of 150 to understand that you cannot deport someone born in the UK. Its breaking UN law. Did you ever learn about your rights at school? i did and we were even taught what to do if a government breaks your human rights. You cannot be forced, by the government, to leave your nation of birth. It's called exile and you cannot be forced into it. Did you watch Blair's speech yesterday? did you listen to the questions from reporters?

one asked on how Blair will deal with UK born Citizens(who break these laws) and Blair said you cannot deport them because they cannot be sent back to the country of their birth, he said the idea of doing that was insane. He's "bright" idea was throwing them in prison, thats why the UK born Citizen got worried because we could face prisonment, not deportation.

So all the UK born citizens who think they are going to be deported can take their tin-foil hats off because you cannot be forced to leave.

Read up on your rights under the EU and UN. Blair cannot touch those rights at all.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by infinite]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Did you watch Blair's speech yesterday? did you listen to the questions from reporters?


I'm getting all this over the internet.....California not England.


Originally posted by infinite
Read up on your rights under the EU and UN. Blair cannot touch those rights at all.


True. In a sense. Allowing the imprisonment of anyone who advocates hate and extremism is an infringement of those rights. Hate and extremism are fairly broad terms and once the hullabaloo has transfered on over to someone new, then the precedent will come back ot haunt the population. I say that as an american too.....we will have our acceptance of indirect rights cession come back to bite us in the bud......all because the majority didn't bother to read the fine print and look at the implications........

[edit on 6-8-2005 by infinite]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
If you go here:

[urlnews.bbc.co.uk...#[/url]

and click on 'Video: Watch the Briefing' under blairs photo then you can watch the whole thing.

It's over and hour long btw, I havn't watched it yet to be honest.

Does anyone have a transcript?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   


Read up on your rights under the EU and UN. Blair cannot touch those rights at all.


Thats part of the problem, Infinite. He is planning to change the Human Rights legislation to allow for him to use this new law.

And as I stated above, the other thing that is of concern is what is defined as "terrorism" and "supporting/inciting/justifying" terrorism. You could believe that Hezbollah attacks against legitimate Israeli Military targets are justified, as they do have a legitimate grievance (illegal Israeli occupation etc).

Merely sympathising with a cause would be grounds for imprisonment/deportation, no matter what the reasons. Seems a little Hitlerish too me, unless they clarify and define what they mean, this is wide open to interpretation



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   


Thats part of the problem, Infinite. He is planning to change the Human Rights legislation to allow for him to use this new law.


it depends what he changes.

Its only when he changes the human rights of UK born Citizens that this will become a MAJOR problem under UN law

Did you know, that the only reason Blair done this was down to public pressure? all the UK media stations and experts have been saying he has only done this due to public pressure of wanting something done. I was reading an article in the paper this morning and its worrying how many people support a decline of democracy in the UK.

whats more worrying, a government killing democracy or the people of the nation killing the democracy?

[edit on 6-8-2005 by infinite]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Have we become so blind as not to see the blatant ignorance of Blairs words, or will the lot of you battle issues of bias and simply lexicon?

Take note, posters, far and beyond, Blair, that these issues of new measures have been married with 'Extremist Muslims', utterly disregarding the possibility that terrorism is not simply rooted in Islam.




"This is not in any way whatsoever aimed at the decent, law-abiding Muslim community of Britain," Blair said.

"We know British Muslims in general abhor the actions of the extremists."



Of course it is, silly boy, you include specificly Islamic members of society as your examples, obviously, and frankly.

Allowing Britain to deport anyone who fosters hatred, or advocates violence to further beliefs, or justifies acts of violence.
Making it an offence to condone or glorify terrorism.

Allowing Britain to deport anyone who fosters hatred, or advocates violence to further beliefs, or justifies acts of violence.
Making it an offence to condone or glorify terrorism.


It has become a crime to simply assert ones opinion in regards to terrorism; this is absolutism at it's finest, and by virtue of force/coercion, the goverment has extended it's powers even further.

Luxifero



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite


Thats part of the problem, Infinite. He is planning to change the Human Rights legislation to allow for him to use this new law.


it depends what he changes.

Its only when he changes the human rights of UK born Citizens that this will become a MAJOR problem under UN law

Did you know, that the only reason Blair done this was down to public pressure? all the UK media stations and experts have been saying he has only done this due to public pressure of wanting something done. I was reading an article in the paper this morning and its worrying how many people support a decline of democracy in the UK.

whats more worrying, a government killing democracy or the people of the nation killing the democracy?

[edit on 6-8-2005 by infinite]


That worries me. It is a dead ringer for the line out of Episode 3:

"So this is how liberty dies...to the sound of thunderous applause...."

And if he changes any part of the Human Rights legislation, it will affect all, not just those "dirty foreigners"....

With these new powers, how can you have engaging public debate about anything? You could not even be Anti-Iraq war and voice your support for the Iraqi resistance (as stated, the ones engaging the Coalition, not the car-bombers....there are different facets to what is happening in Iraq) who, for all intents and purposes, are fighting an occupation of their homeland, very much the same as you or me might well do in the same situation.

Who gets to define who/what is a terrorist? What is inciting/supporting/or justifying?

Are the Nepalese rebels, rebels? Or are they terrorists?

One could argue they are fighting against an Autocratic regime and for freedom of the people, others could label them as terrorists.

Would supporting them in their cause to rid Nepal of an overbearing absolute King be "sympathising" with "terrorists", or seen as supporting a popular revolutionary movement?

Many people, including many Americans and Irish would/could and did justify the IRA actions and, in all honesty, they believed themselves to be fighting an occupation and on the whole (but not entirely)they targetted the military.

When civilian centres where attacked at least they had the good manners to warn us.

My statement there could be construde as "justifying", although I in no way support the Republican cause as NI is British, but could I be prosecuted merely for saying such things?

Just because I may understand the point of view, does that mean I sympathise? Hell no, but can I prove that? Doubt it....



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The above is a good argumentation against the actions of this obviously obtrusive Goverment.

This advocates a sphere of absolutism around the Goverment and it's actions and concludes virtue of 'just' moral authority herein; this is falacious as no Goverment is just, as it is privy to corruption, among many other things.

Principle has depleted in the world.

Luxifero.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS



Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.




www.unhchr.ch...


Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite


Thats part of the problem, Infinite. He is planning to change the Human Rights legislation to allow for him to use this new law.


it depends what he changes.


That's the most beautiful aspect of the situation...he/they can change what they want in response to legal challenges...meaning they can tailor a defense to whatever gets tossed their direction....that's a lot of power...


Originally posted by infinite
Did you know, that the only reason Blair done this was down to public pressure?


Haste makes for waste.....I'm not a fan of 'isms' because they usually fail to take into account unique details that effect the interpretation of every case, but here we have an adequate application of one. Proposing revolutionary legislation that would change the basic and very relevant definition of our human rights in the face of public opinion that is reactionary is not good business...unless the reaction of the population was counted upon, in which case we have a very different discussion, which would be right up your alley, infinite....


Originally posted by infinite
whats more worrying, a government killing democracy or the people of the nation killing the democracy?


Interesting choice.....imo, they go hand in hand. The people destroying democracy in light of their ignorance to all the facts is a tactic that can be employed by the government, or rather, key aspects of the government and supporting cast......either way, you have events dictating how society is formulated, rather than cooperative creation........

thepresidentsbrain

Excellent legwork......you get a way above vote for it.



You have voted thepresidentsbrain for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


The very simplicity of the human rights assertion is what makes it valuable.....Blair is setting the stage for arbitrary reasonings to effect how citizens and foriegn nationals alike are treated.......

[edit on 6-8-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 6-8-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 6-8-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite


According to his publicly stated policy all people who 'justify violence' are to be deported.. . . and this includes himself.


How the hell can Blair be deported? he was BORN in this country, how the hell can you deport someone BORN in this country? you can't. I could stand in London and promote terrorism, but i cannot be deported because i was born in this country.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by infinite]


Infinite, you and Smith have missed the point once again

The point is that Blair is guilty of breaking his own proposed new law. . . . that of "justifying violence". . . . . this is the case regardless of whether or not the specific punishment of deportation can be applied to people born in the UK.

Whatever punishment people born in the UK face for "justifying violence" under Blair's new law it is clearly the case that he is guilty of "justifying violence " himself. . . .

This is a very simple point and I think that it is time that you addressed it!!@

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I wouldn't waste your breath inf, I pointed this out complete with wikipedia definition back on page 1, but as it goes against what he wants to say he ignored it anyway.



And back on page one I pointed out that Blair is guilty of "justifying violence" and is thus breaking his own proposed law.

That was my main point !

What have you got to say about it?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I'll have to watch his speech again, but I caught a pretty decent segment of it earlier, And I thought he was saying that any foreigners or people of foreign decent to Britain found to be justifying violence or glorifying and supporting terrorism would be deported.

I may be wrong but the entire speech was over an hour long, so I apologise if I missed the specific part where he made this statement in such a broad context as you are implying.

You seem to be making your point based on the wording of the article you link to in your first post which is not a word for word transcript of what he actually said and within context. Maybe you should divert your attention to the media source (Which can't be trusted - isn't it an (evil) TV channel?) rather than him as you are picking on their inaccurate wording, not his necessarily.


[edit on 6-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join